NATIVE LAND COURT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 261, 25 March 1911, Page 2

NATIVE LAND COURT

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. NGATITAMA ABSENTEES. At the Native Land Court sitting here under Judge H. Wilson, an important judgment was given, which not only settles the ownership of a block of land of 595 acres 2 roods, but also defines the relative interests of each native owner. This block of land has practically been in Chancery for nearly half a century, if such an expression can be used in relation to native land. The whole matter was settled within a week.

The land in question is contained in sections 2, 25 and 26, block 11, Mimi, and is part of 1300 acres that was set apart by the Government for the members of the Ngatitama tribe, who were absent when the Compensation Court sat at New Plymouth in 1866. A large meeting of natives at Wellington in 1867 drew up a list of absentees, and this 1300 acres was awarded in the proportion of 16 acres to each absentee.

The case presented considerable difficulty, as the lists then prepared cannot be found, so it was impossible to ascertain in whose favor the award was made. Even if it were available, it is doubtful if it would be of much assistance to the Court, as in 1884 the Commissioner who reported on the West Coast Settlement Reserves was assured that it was imperfect and entirely unreliable. The balance of the 1300 acres has been sold by the Government, and but for the vigilance, energy and perseverance of the local members of the Ngatitama tribe in presenting their claims to the Minister of Native Affairs, the piece then before the Court would probably have been sold also.

By agreement between the various parties it was laid down by the Court that they should only include absentees who were living in 1867, and, further, that any area in excess of 10 acres per head should be given to those members of the tribe who received less than that area in the Ngatitama block of 570 acres. The parties were represented by four conductors, and lists of names, supported by whakapapas, were submitted. They were separately "panuied," and, after being challenged, were passed as follows: Mr. Damon, 70 names submitted' (all passed); Hanikamu te Hiko 35 (32), Paki Ruamoetahuna 10 (3), Waata Hipango I2 (0), a total of 105 names being passed.

The list finally submitted by Waata Hipango contained four named, and the claim for the inclusion was strenuously opposed by the other parties, on the ground that they were not Ngatihanas. In support, Waata Hipango called Warahi te Whiutahi and Hakiaha Tawhiao, prominent members of the Ngatihana tribe, well versed in whakapapas. A long genealogy was given by the former, commencing from Ngaruamaunu, who married Upokoturanga, and thence to their living descendants, among whom are the names of recognised Ngatitamas. This was confirmed by Hakiaha, who was able to supply additional information overlooked or forgotten by Warahi. Both parties disagreed as to the name of the.ancestor from whom the tribe derived its name, one side claiming Tamaeihorangi, and the other Tamaihutoroa. This point did not appear to be material except, pertiaps, as a test of because all parties agreed as to Uerata being the son of Ngaruamaunu and Upokoturanga, both of whom appear to be the common source for some of the lines worked out by the contending parties. From this point there is a great divergence of opinion. Naipo, who married Tarapohea, a Wanganui man, and thereby became one of the alleged progenitors of the Wanganui Ngatitamas, is stated bv Hipango's part to have been the child of Uerata, by his wife Te Kahurangi. This the opposing party denied and stated that Naipo's mother was Aniwaniwa. They were, however, unable to give the name of the father.

There was further disagreement in respect of (I) Hinewaituri I. being the daughter and not the sister-in-law of Maropuwai; (2) Hinewaituri II. being the parent of Waaka Taiaoao and Atiria instead of being the parent to Taiaoao, who was the parent of Waaka and Atiria; (3) Tainnu being the child of Ngaruamaunu and Upokoturanga and not of Hotumatua and Ruawalline.

Both parties agreed that Naipo was a Ngatitama and married Tarapohea: that Uerata married Te Kahurangi: that Maropuwai was a child of Naipo; that Tainni married Tane Hakari. With such a mass of contradictions it was a difficult matter to distinguish the right from the wrong. It was admitted, whether the whakapapas are correct or otherwise, that Naipo and Tainui, who were both members of the Ngatitama, married Wanganui men, and that their descendants were entitled to be considered members of the Ngatitama tribe. So far as the Court was aware, there were no tribes of that name in the. Wanganui district, but a claim had been set up that it is known as Ngatihana, living at Marokohae and elsewhere on the upper reaches of the Wanganui river. The Court felt somewhat diffident in deciding whether or not this Ngatihana tribe is a branch of the true Ngatitama as no satisfactory evidence was "produced in confirmation. During the course of his address Waata Hipango referred the Court to Mr. Percy Smith's recent book, "Maori History of the Taranaki Coast," but after perusing references quoted by him the Court could not accept the statements recorded therein as proof that Ngatihana and Ngatitama are one and

the same tribe. That the two tribes were on amicable terms, frequently assisting one another in repelling the attacks of their enemies, may no doubt be true, but in the absence of direct proof these friendly relations as a testimony that they were one and the same people could not be accepted. Several prominent chiefs who appeared in Warahi's whakapapa were lighting in battle side by side with the Ngatitama, but these men were not shown on Mahani te rua's whakapapa, and for that reason were probably disclaimed by Mr. Damon's party. A great deal was made of the fact that neither Hakiaha nor any of his relatives attended the Compensation Court in 1860, nor the meeting in Wellington in 1867. Their absence was no doubt due to ignorance, as they were living in a state of Hauhauism far away from civilisation and had no knowledge of what was going on in the outside world.

The claim set up by Hipango was not sufficiently strong to warrant the Court in passing bis list of names, the failure to prove that Ngatitama and Ngatihana are. one and the same tribe, and the discrepancies in the whakapapa given by his witnesses, being fatal to his case. Where there was a conflict between whakapapas given by trustworthy witnesses the Court is inclined to lean in favor of that supplied by a member belonging to the tribe whose house is in this locality, as such a person was more likely to be better equipped in the knowledge history and traditions of his tribe than he who lives at a distance and who, to quote his own words, "was living in the bush in a state of ignorance.".

The Court therefore dismissed Waata Hipango's list and ordered in favor of the 105 submitted by Mr. Damon, Hanikamu te Hiko and Paki Ruamoetahuna.